You need both water baptism and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit.

KelbyofGod · May 25, 2022

Addressing this one first because it's on the actual topic (Yes, I know Im the one who caused a secondary tangent).

I was using "change of heart" as meaning "reversal of intention".

FreeGrace2 said:

But you also know that RM has that problem. And being aware that he doesn't always see the details, you knowingly, passively allowed him to continue to misinterpret "Jesus' baptism" to mean "water baptism in Jesus' name"...when you COULD have easily told him you meant "when Jesus was water baptized by John". That kind of tactic is what the serpent did to Eve when he said "Ye shall not surely die" (Gen. 3:4) in answer to Eve's statement of "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." (Gen. 3:3) The serpent likewise knew that Eve was misinterpreting what God said (she added "neither shall ye touch it"). And he COULD have easily told her what God actually said/meant... but instead he (too) knowingly, passively allowed her to continue in her misconception to her own destruction.

At no point did he actually LIE to her. He just left out enough truth to allow her to fail. That's subversion of truth (IMHO).

Definition of subvert

transitive verb

1: to overturn or overthrow from the foundation : RUIN

2: to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith

Source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subvert

FreeGrace2 said:

I understand that verse. And regardless of whether or not I fit your definition of commentator, why rely on commentators (aka MAN)? Why not just ask God what it means? Does he not promise that the Holy Ghost will teach us all things?

FreeGrace2 said:

I would disagree with that doctrine. I would also disagree that it is beyond nuts. If the commentators don't have a great grasp of understanding, why the unnecessary slam of RM's understanding? Why not just call it "wrong"? And that's more of a rhetorical question. I'd just as soon leave RM's interpretation to RM on that one, since he's not here talking about it.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

FreeGrace2 · May 25, 2022

KelbyofGod said:

OK, so we agree on the meaning of repentance. It is a change of the mind.

He is so confused about 'baptism' it's hard to keep things straight with him.

Well, I disagree that I ever knowingly tried to "lead him on", as you think.

I can't imagine why you'd think I did that to any poster.

FreeGrace2 said:
His whole doctrine of requiring water baptism to be in the resurrection is based on a verse that no commentator even understands. There are no historical records to explain the practice of proxy baptism.
[/QUOTE] I understand that verse.[/QUOTE]
Really? Then please explain what Paul was referring to, meaning the purpose of this proxy baptism.

If it were that easy, then there should be NO disagreements among any believers. Yet, 2 believers can come away from a verse with exactly opposite understandings.

I don't "slam" it. I point out his error. Which he greatly dislikes. If a proxy baptism benefits a dead person, please explain how that isn't nuts.

I've told him that many times.

KelbyofGod · May 25, 2022

FreeGrace2 said:

Don't short change me on that. I said the FIRST part is reversal of intention. The SECOND part is the follow-through. It takes BOTH parts to be fruitful/profitable. Remember John's (and Jesus') warnings about failing to bring for the FRUITS appropriate to repentance.

If a lazy farmer "reverses his intention" and now decides to grow and harvest wheat instead of weeds, BUT again grows lazy and allows the weeds to grow up with the wheat (choking and killing the wheat), the farmer again harvests the fruit of weeds instead of the fruit of wheat. And if he's made a "life-changing" promise to the landlord that "Oh, yes he would change his ways, be frutiful, and bring forth wheat"... He's likely to get kicked off the land and/or thrown in jail.

The result of "change of mind/heart/intention" without the corresponding and appropriate "change of action" leads to destruction rather than life.

Similarly, a "change of action" without the corresponding and appropriate "change of mind/heart/intention" will also fail because that is just making the outside of the cup clean without changing the inside of the cup... And that's why/how/where the scribes and Pharisees were failing.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby[/QUOTE]

FreeGrace2 · May 25, 2022

KelbyofGod said:

Correct.

KelbyofGod · May 25, 2022

FreeGrace2 said:

I said "I understand that verse."

FreeGrace2 said:

To clarify, I said I understand the verse (which is more important than understanding proxy baptism) Here's the verse:

1 Corinthians 15:29 KJV

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Paul was making a point. And he had a stated practice of meeting people at their level, so to speak (1 Cor. 9:20-22)
He presented the argument for resurrection from the dead AS IF he were one who believes in the process of proxy baptism because apparently he was speaking to some who DID believe in the process of proxy baptism.... So he makes his point using THEIR doctrine. "Proxy baptism is completely worthless without resurrection from the dead being an absolue FACT"

It's more important for them to understand resurrection from the dead FIRST, then IF they get that, he could address the matter of proxy baptism. And, like me, he probably knows that if they learn how to pray and let God teach them, God is quite willing to show them more accurate information about baptism, too. How do you think He and Peter wrote what they wrote (Rom 6:4-5, Col. 2:11-12, 1 Peter 3:21, etc) if they didn't know how to go to the Lord and receive new information? The Holy Ghost gives us all things pertaining to life and Godliness (2 Pet 1:3), and we need no man (commentator) to teach us (1 John 2:27)

As for the following comment:

FreeGrace2 said:

You are correct, there SHOULD be no disagreements among any believers. But your next comment is accurate as well:

FreeGrace2 said:

I'll tell you a few reasons this happens:

Ignorance
Laziness
Lying/deceit

Ignorance: (means they don't know). Many in and out of the body of Christ simply DO NOT KNOW how to pray until God answers. Therefore they don't pray until God answers. This means they're left with their own (almost always wrong) understanding.

Laziness: (means even if they do know how, they're not willing to put in the required effort). They're not going to receive an answer... Not because they don't know how to pray, but because they're LAZY and won't pray until God answers. End result = they, too are left with their own (almost always wrong) understanding.

Lying/deceit: (means they would rather lie to you than be honest) These are the classic Scribes and Pharisees. They want to LOOK like they know what they're talking about (so they say something as convincing as possible). But of a truth, they are usually both ignorant AND lazy... and they don't want to admit it. These also don't and/or won't actually pray until God answers...because they don't want to be found out. (John 3:20)

Most churches are predominantly filled with these three types of people. Therefore they are filled with a myriad of fleshly interpretations... And telling them to pray about something is not going to produce agreement.

Not that this always happens (we've got ignorance, laziness and lying/deceit in our church sometimes, too) But I was so happy when we used to get into heated debates/arguments (with exactly OPPOSITE understandings) at bible studies and my wise sister-in-law would say " We all know how to pray. Every one of us can go to God and let God open our understandings. God is no respector of persons. He's willing to teach all that come unto him. So If we all pray, He will teach us all. And anyone not willing to go to God with their questions is going to be deceived anyway. So there's no need for us to argue." And then we stopped arguing and let each other pray. I'm willing to pray until God answers and so was she. And I loved it when God would show us the same thing on the same day even if we were separated by states. It could be days or months or years later, but He'd show us both (and others who prayed). And there was agreement. (except among the WILLINGLY ignorant, lazy and lying/deceitful). The NON-lazy, honest-yet-ignorant would begin to pray (because they really wanted to know, and know how to get stuff from God) and he would teach them same as the more elder in the bunch. That's how I learned.

Sorry so long of a post. It all seemed to go together.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

.

FreeGrace2 · May 25, 2022

KelbyofGod said:

What is important is to understand the meaning behind this "proxy baptism".

OK, so just what is "their doctrine" anyway? If you understand the meaning and Paul's point, what is it?

So then, you still don't know what the issue of proxy baptism is?

No, Paul was quite clear about believers being ignorant of doctrine.

Rom 11:25 - I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in
1 Cor 10:1 - For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
1 Cor 15:34 - Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God —I say this to your shame.

All this was written to believers.

Neither did they need to go to the Lord to receive "new information".

We know where Peter got his information from:

Matt 28-
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

iow, Peter was given the great commission to make disciples (evangelism) and teach them to obey "everything I have commanded you".

That was Peter's marching orders, like the other apostles.

Paul was given his information directly from Jesus Himself:
Gal 1-
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin.
12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

Runningman · May 25, 2022

KelbyofGod said:

Water baptism, since its establishment by John the Baptist (at God's commandment) is for remission of sins (Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3). Remission means separation from; removal of; washing away of. The name of Jesus was added after Jesus rose from the dead (Luke 24:47) and being water baptized continued "in Jesus name" & "for the remission of sins" according to Acts 2:38.

The disciples (believers) were baptized in water throughout John's ministry (Mark 1:5) and throughout Jesus' ministry John 4:1-2 (at start of) & Matthew 28:19 (at end of) but that wasn't enough. Jesus didn't JUST come to die for your sins. The disciples (believers) were instructed to tarry (wait, continue, abide, stand fast) until they were endued with power from on high... wait for the Comforter... wait for the Holy Ghost... wait for the promise... wait to be baptized with the Holy Ghost / Holy Spirit which was promised as surely as water baptism for remission of sins. (Matthew 3:11, Mark 1:8, Luke 3:16, John 1:33, Acts 1:5)

Both of these events (water baptism & Spirit baptism) are observable events. They are WITNESSES. They provide EVIDENCE.

Onlookers could tell when a person was baptized in water because the person was dunked, whelmed, fully wet.

Onlookers (informed onlookers) could tell when and/or IF someone got baptized with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:4, Acts 8:17-18, Acts 10:45-46, Acts 19:6). I left off the 'how' on this one because I'd rather you read it and struggle with the scriptures than struggle with me.

And I'll stop right there because Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts are basics of New Testament belief/salvation. In some senses I could have stopped at Acts 2 but wanted to include more than one example of the observability of spirit baptism.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Nicely put.

KelbyofGod · May 27, 2022

Sometimes you make sense as if you're able to see and receive new information. Other times you speak as if led only by the spirit of indoctrination. (Which means the equivalent of shutting off your reasoning ability and compare what is said ONLY against the words of the doctrine you have accepted. My question is... Do you realize when you're submitting to the spirit of indoctrination?

You've made two statements here that are great for just throwing out random (or practiced) doctrine as if it's truth and makes great sense, but the first statement (premise) is contradictory to the second. And the second premise is clearly contradicting what it recorded in the scriptures. Hence my question about the influence of indoctrination. Here's the first quote:

FreeGrace2 said:

If that was truly important then you're left with two options.

If YOU don't know what you've claimed is important, then you are admitting you "don't know" something that is truly important. (A.k.a. declaring yourself ignorant of the important). The only way out of that is #2..
If it is important and you don't know it, then the only solution is to gain new information." Which is contrary to your next statement:

FreeGrace2 said:

That statement is basically a way of declaring "No one receives new information from the Lord." Which BTW, is false BECAUSE, if it were a TRUE statement, that means you have ZERO way of finding out the information you just said is important. No new information = No way to learn the answers to mysteries. AND..

It is scripturally proven that Peter DID receive "new infomation" while in prayer, etc because of the vision (repeated 3x) plus the voice of the Lord SPEAKING to him telling him there were three men come to get him and to go with them, doubting nothing. Acts 10:9-20

Those two examples (One of failed reasoning, and one of ignoring scriptural proof) are why I was asking if you're aware of when you're shutting down your mind to submit to the spirit of indoctrination (which defies both the details of scripture, and the logic of reasoning).

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Magenta · May 27, 2022

KelbyofGod said:

He most certainly did.

God said, "You must not eat from the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

The serpent said, “You will not surely die."

I call that a lie. In fact, that lie is being told to this very day.

KelbyofGod · May 28, 2022

Magenta said:

You are reading into it something that wasn't actually said. (which is also the mistake Eve made)

There were TWO things Eve said they couldn't do lest they die:

Eat
Touch

Only one of those would cause them to die. The other would not.

When the serpent said "Ye shall not surely die" without saying which of the two conditions he was referring to Eve assumed that he was talking about the first condition.

She truly WOULD NOT have surely died...if she walked away and didn't eat the fruit.
She truly WOULD NOT have surely died...If she only TOUCHED the fruit.

It wasn't the serpent who supplied the last half of the sentence. He PURPOSELY did not explain under what conditions his statement was true (vs. false). Eve only ASSUMED he was saying 'Ye shall not surely die...if you EAT of the fruit" <-- but that last part is NOT what was said.

Eve added to what God said... and she added to what the serpent said.

The serpent just USED those mistakes and his own subtlety to guide her to the wrong conclusions, and to her own voluntary destruction. That's why I called it subversion.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

KelbyofGod · May 28, 2022

Genesis 2:16-17 KJV

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: [17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God said nothing about touching it.

But Eve said something different:

Genesis 3:2-3 KJV

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: [3] But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

She "would not surely die" if she touched it.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

KelbyofGod · May 28, 2022

@Magenta

KelbyofGod said:

I should have included the clarification that I've now added (in bold) to the end of the last sentence since we're discussing what the serpent said.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

FreeGrace2 · May 28, 2022

KelbyofGod said:

Thank you for your opinion. My study is in the Word, not in "indoctrination".

You're going to have to actually quote my 2 statements together so I can see them. They didn't appear when I clicked on 'reply'.

Well, of course, He was an inspired of Scripture? Are you? No. Am I? No.

When the canon was completed, there is no new information.

KelbyofGod · May 28, 2022

Magenta said:

FYI, I need to recant my position. It is wrong for me to say he didn't lie.

Love in Jesus,
Kelby

Search

You need both water baptism and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit.

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

FreeGrace2

Banned

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

FreeGrace2

Banned

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

FreeGrace2

Banned

Runningman

Banned

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

Magenta

Senior Member

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

KelbyofGod

Senior Member

FreeGrace2

Banned

KelbyofGod

Senior Member